Hello all,
I have revised all the comments I received now and during the Last
Call. My previous message was just formal stating statistical data on
LC. Here I'd like to mention what I really think of the document and
its further destiny.
Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless
to implement this. Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me
- it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used in this
occasion. This, IMO, is one of the most suitable for me and this
technology. But if we implement this now using Warning, one problem is
absence of IANA registry for Warning codes, such as for Status codes.
As this message is now sent to httpbis WG mailing list, I ask you if
there is a sense in creating such registry?
As for the initial draft, I think I'm about to withdraw /it /(but not my
idea). So result of Last Call seems to be the following: the idea in
the current implementation as Internet-Draft does not seem to be
appropriate. So I'll raise this topic later.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
08.01.2011 13:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 08.01.2011 11:19, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
If a draft changes three times during LC, there may be a problem. I
encourage you to go back to the drawing board, and think hard(er about
the feedback you got, in particular
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0645.html>.
Why do you think that the draft shouldn't be changed during LC?
Because people assume stability during LC, and are unlikely to review
the spec multiple times during the same LC.
Of course that does not mean that you can't start addressing issues
during LC. Just do so in a way that it doesn't change what's being
last-called. For instance, by publishing the current edits on a
private web page.
If you have non-editorial changes, the AD will have to decide whether
they require a new LC.
Moreover, I had some reasons for doing that. firstly, version -09 added
the section that was not present in -08 and if I added it now, there
would not be a possibility to discuss it. Version -10 presented the most
There was no stability *because* of these updates.
stable one to reflect all the comments I received during the LC. And -11
was prepared as final for IESG review.
My recommendation to the IESG is to wait for a stable spec, and then
restart the LC.
I have fully answered all the question form the message you refer to.
I also mentioned at least once that in many frameworks this is
essentially un-implementable, as different types of header fields are
processed by different, independent layers in the code, and thus
there's no way some part of the code will ever *know* which headers
have been "processed". Do you think that this is not a problem?
That is the issues that would be decided by the implementators.
Moreover, one code layer may support this technology while others may
not.
How so? If a servlet does support it, but the servlet container does
not, there's no way to generate a correct header field value.
...
* Syntax: Changed. Now is not /token**/but /1*VCAHR /for definition
of the name of the header.
...
Why?
RFC2616 gives the following definition of token:
token = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators>
separators = "(" | ")" | "<" |">" | "@"
| "," | ";" | ":" | "\" |<">
| "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "="
| "{" | "}" | SP | HT
And non-visible chars are not allowed in headers. So only VCHARs.
That didn't answer my question. Why did you change something that was
ok? It also shows why you'll need a new LC.
In this particular case the change wasn't only not necessary, but also
changes the syntax significantly. VCHAR allows significantly more
characters than HTTP's token, namely the comma that you already need
as delimiter.
Well, assuming you mean the VCHAR definition from RFC 5234, because
your spec doesn't clearly say where it comes from (you could import
specific productions or all of them from 5234, but you should say that).
Speaking of which: you can't have a "_" character in a rule name.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf